My Status

Welshwoofs

Emily1990 wrote: »

Refuse to answer the question next time, ask them how it is relevant and perhaps point out how it is illegal to discriminate (as Little Voice said-would they ask them same of a male candidate?).

Do that and you most certainly won't get the job for some other reason because they'll have you marked out as a 'trouble maker'. It may not be legal, but it's most certainly what would happen.

In all honesty I can see the other side of the coin too. Maternity leave is now so generous that it can really damage small companies who have to find some way to struggle on without that employee for up to a year...and then may possibly face the woman wanting to return part-time, or on flexible hours.

terra_ferma

Questions about marital status, kids etc are definitely illegal, and they leave themselves open to ET action.
I would say it's worth contacting the unions/ACAS/CAB to get advice. Obviously it would be denied, but if the candidate who got the job was a man and less qualified than you, you would have a case.
It is not only about your word against theirs, but the evidence they can provide that the other person was better qualified.

hothothot_3

would it be possible to record an interview with dictaphone, and then use this later in tribunal?

Emily1990_2

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Do that and you most certainly won't get the job for some other reason because they'll have you marked out as a 'trouble maker'. It may not be legal, but it's most certainly what would happen.

In all honesty I can see the other side of the coin too. Maternity leave is now so generous that it can really damage small companies who have to find some way to struggle on without that employee for up to a year...and then may possibly face the woman wanting to return part-time, or on flexible hours.

Well I wouldn't say 'it's illegal to disciminate' but I'd certainly ask if they would be asking male candidates the same question.

I worked for the company who asked me that question in the interview and they were awful to work for, they got !!!!y when I had to take three days off for illness, I ended up dragging myself in and got jip off my boss for having sick leave! They would look for any little excuse to fire people and in the past victimised employees (for instance, they fired a guy for having the internet browser open all day, despite the fact he was working hard all day and got all his work done) (I was only there for 2 months so didn't really see much of it but it happened). I handed my notice in and feel much happier now.

So, in short, if somebody is asking those sorts of questions in interview, in my experience, I don't want to work for them anyway.

Savvy_Sue

hothothot wrote: »

would it be possible to record an interview with dictaphone, and then use this later in tribunal?

You would have to ask for their permission to do this, I think, and again, it would lead me as an interviewer to wonder why you thought this was necessary? ie mark you down as a trouble maker.

Although we are a very good employer and don't ask discriminatory questions in the first place. Mind you we do have exemption under the sex discrimination act to only employ females in the first place.

poorgrad

SueC wrote: »

Is this discrimination, or my own stupid fault for not getting married and having kids?

We all make our choices in life, and have to live with the consequences.

Agreed. In my current job people want to know why I would also like to have time off at Christmas, Easter and summer holidays as I don't have children. Hmmmm, maybe because I have a life (or am trying to!) and deserve to have time off whenever I like if it is available. When you have children, you have to get on with it. My mum, aunties and sisters did.

poorgrad

pinkshoes wrote: »

As an unmarried 30 year old female with no children (but wanting 3!!), then if I were an employer, I would employ a male over me any day I'm afraid.

I think you have to be VERY careful when answering questions about your personal status, because if you tell them it's none of their business, you come across as being defensive - it's a sign you might cause the company problems.

But you are making assumptions:

a) that because a candidate is female they want children
b) that as a mother they would take the maximum maternity leave - my sister went back to work the following week

Don't father's get paternity leave? That means that they may also take time off and also need to stay at home when their children are ill.

hothothot_3

I mean record with it covertly, and before we go into legality of it: im pretty sure theres nothing illegal as it is only public bodies who are bound by legislation like RIPA, from a data protection act point of view im not entirely sure.

I was thinking along the lines of......

start dictaphone recording then conceal in pocket/bag whatever
walk into room, greet interviewer, sit down
take paper work out and pen and say "ok if i take some notes"
interviewer id imagine would not have problem "sure no problem"

this would be the official permission that you could take notes, obviously he has seen the paper and pen and assumes that is all you meant but he has unwittingly allowed you to take notes by use of the dictaphone.

meanwhile any incriminating questions are recorded on the dictaphone, nice insurance for any potential unfair discrimination.

greenbee

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Although we are a very good employer and don't ask discriminatory questions in the first place. Mind you we do have exemption under the sex discrimination act to only employ females in the first place.

So you can only discriminate based on age, race, religion, disability or just taking a dislike to the individual

I remember having to review all my interview questions when the age discrimination rules came in to make sure none of them indicated a bias towards either experience that was based on time or youth.

At the end of the day, hopefully most employers are looking for the best person to do the job. As long as they are clear as to the requirements of the role (e.g. peculiar hours, flexibility to work extra hours at short notice if the business needs it, the need to travel for work and stay away overnight etc) then both parties should be able to be honest.

As an employer, I have always found that age & gender are irrelevant. Education can be too after a while (depending on the role). The personality, skills & experience of the individual have always been the most important thing. If the CV gets through screening (so clear, easy to read with no spelling or grammar errors), then I'm open to persuasion. I have in the past recruited both men and women, both older and younger than myself, married with older children, married with no children, single with small children, single & childless. All of them have pros & cons, and all of those states may be subject to change.

Having said that, for reliability, efficiency and commitment I don't think you can beat return to work mums, or mums whose kids are now in their late teens and who are getting their careers going again!

Individuals who ask questions that make you feel uncomfortable aren't the kind of people I'd want to work for. But it might be worth saying something like 'yes, I've got 6-month old quintuplets, they're wonderful - how is this relevant to the role?' as it MAY be relevant (e.g. if they're going to say you work 3 days a week from an offshore oil rig), and they should explain that ... to which your reply would be 'that's fine, the nanny, housekeeper and butler can manage fine without me - I only see them on Sundays anyway!'

I realise that this is a flippant example, but it may be that the issue is relevant and that they haven't worked out how to deal with it. What they SHOULD do, is give you enough information about the job to allow you to work out whether there is anything in your personal life that might mean that you and this particular job aren't the best fit. After all, they should assume that all candidates have the best of intentions and are committed and enthusiastic about the role and want to succeed, not that they're looking for a mug to pay their maternity benefits!

poorgrad

I think that the point of this post has slightly gone off topic. I'm not really referring to an employer interviewing a pregnant candidate. That is a different ball game - as it is pretty obvious that the mother-to-be will require maternity leave. And then the employer will need to consider the requirements of their business.

I'm referring to someone looking at a female candidate and assuming that they will be pregnant at some point in the near future...

Discrimination is not allowed. So why are we providing excuses for employers wanting the best for their businesses if they don't bother giving candidates a chance because they made assumptions based on the way they look?

Does that make it ok for the employer to chose someone simply based on their race, age, gender etc? Is it now ok to assume that because a candidate is overweight they are lazy and because they are older they are not tech savvy? Ridiculous - my mum is over 60 knows more about laptops and mobile phones than me and my friends!